Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12821702›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2003

Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses.

M Petticrew, H Roberts

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Community wide interventions for increasing physical activity.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  10. Triclosan/copolymer containing toothpastes for oral health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  11. Contribution of systematic reviews to management decisions.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2013
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M PetticrewMRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, UK. mark@msoc.mrc.gla.ac.uk
H Roberts

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Debate is ongoing about the nature and use of evidence in public health decision making, and there seems to be an emerging consensus that the "hierarchy of evidence" may be difficult to apply in other settings. It may be unhelpful however to simply abandon the hierarchy without having a framework or guide to replace it. One such framework is discussed. This is based around a matrix, and emphasises the need to match research questions to specific types of research. This emphasis on methodological appropriateness, and on typologies rather than hierarchies of evidence may be helpful in organising and appraising public health evidence.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPolicy MakingPublic HealthHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPublic Policy

Identifiers

PMID12821702
PMCPMC1732497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.